I'm writing a linux kernel module that emulates a block device.
There are various calls that can be used to tell the block size to the kernel, so it aligns and sizes every request toward the driver accordingly. This is well documented in the "Linux Device Drives 3" book.
The book describes two methods of implementing a block device: using a "request" function, or using a "make_request" function.
It is not clear, whether the queue limit calls apply when using the minimalistic "make_request" approach (which is also the more efficient one if the underlying device is has really no benefit from sequential over random IO, which is the case with me).
I would really like to get the kernel to talk to me using 4K block sizes, but I see smaller bio-s hitting my make_request function.
My question is that should the blk_queue_limit_* affect the bio size when using make_request?
Thank you in advance.
I think I've found enough evidence in the kernel code that if you use make_request, you'll get correctly sized and aligned bios.
The answer is:
You must call blk_queue_make_request first, because it sets queue limits to defaults. After this, set queue limits as you'd like.
It seems that every part of the kernel submitting bios are do check for validity, and it's up to the submitter to do these checks. I've found incomplete validation in submit_bio and generic_make_request. But as long as no one does tricks, it's fine.
Since it's a policy to submit correct bio's, but it's up to the submitter to take care, and no one in the middle does, I think I have to implement explicit checks and fail the wrong bio-s. Since it's a policy, it's fine to fail on violation, and since it's not enforced by the kernel, it's a good thing to do explicit checks.
If you want to read a bit more on the story, see http://tlfabian.blogspot.com/2012/01/linux-block-device-drivers-queue-and.html.
Related
I have an HID device that is somewhat unfortunately designed (the Griffin Powermate) in that as you turn it, the input value for the "Rotation Axis" HID element doesn't change unless the speed of rotation dramatically changes or unless the direction changes. It sends many HID reports (angular resolution appears to be about 4deg, in that I get ~90 reports per revolution - not great, but whatever...), but they all report the same value (generally -1 or 1 for CCW and CW respectively -- if you turn faster, it will report -2 & 2, and so on, but you have to turn much faster. As a result of this unfortunate behavior, I'm finding this thing largely useless.
It occurred to me that I might be able to write a background userspace app that seized the physical device and presented another, virtual device with some minor additions so as to cause an input value change for every report (like a wrap-around accumulator, which the HID spec has support for -- God only knows why Griffin didn't do this themselves.)
But I'm not seeing how one would go about creating the kernel side object for the virtual device from userspace, and I'm starting to think it might not be possible. I saw this question, and its indications are not good, but it's low on details.
Alternately, if there's a way for me to spoof reports on the existing device, I suppose that would do it as well, since I could set it back to zero immediately after it reports -1 or 1.
Any ideas?
First of all, you can simulate input events via Quartz Event Services but this might not suffice for your purposes, as that's mainly designed for simulating keyboard and mouse events.
Second, the HID driver family of the IOKit framework contains a user client on the (global) IOHIDResource service, called IOHIDResourceDeviceUserClient. It appears that this can spawn IOHIDUserDevice instances on command from user space. In particular, the userspace IOKitLib contains a IOHIDUserDeviceCreate function which seems to be supposed to be able to do this. The HID family source code even comes with a little demo of this which creates a virtual keyboard of sorts. Unfortunately, although I can get this to build, it fails on the IOHIDUserDeviceCreate call. (I can see in IORegistryExplorer that the IOHIDResourceDeviceUserClient instance is never created.) I've not investigated this further due to lack of time, but it seems worth pursuing if you need its functionality.
xmalloc can be used in the process environment only when I write a AIX kernel extension.
what's the memory allocation functions can be called from the interrupt environment in AIX?
thanks.
The network memory allocation routines. Look in /usr/include/net/net_malloc.h. The lowest level is net_malloc and net_free.
I don't see much documentation in IBM's pubs nor the internet. There are a few examples in various header files.
There is public no prototype that I can find for these.
If you look in net_malloc.h, you will see MALLOC and NET_MALLOC macros defined that call it. Then if you grep in all the files under /usr/include, you will see uses of these macros. From these uses, you can deduce the arguments to the macros and thus deduce the arguments to net_malloc itself. I would make one routine that is a pass through to net_malloc that you controlled the interface to.
On your target system, do "netstat -m". The last bucket size you see will be the largest size you can call net_malloc with the M_NOWAIT flag. M_WAIT can be used only at process time and waits for netm to allocate more memory if necessary. M_NOWAIT returns with a 0 if there is not enough memory pinned. At interrupt time, you must use M_NOWAIT.
There is no real checking for the "type" but it is good to pick an appropriate type for debugging purposes later on. The netm output from kdb shows the type.
In a similar fashion, you can figure out how to call net_free.
Its sad IBM has chosen not to document this. An alternative to get this information officially is to pay for an "ISV" question. If you are doing serious AIX development, you want to become an ISV / Partner. It will save you lots of heart break. I don't know the cost but it is within reach of small companies and even individuals.
This book is nice to have too.
Is there a way, in Windows, to check if a page in in memory or in disk(swap space)?
The reason I want know this is to avoid causing page fault if the page is in disk, by not accessing that page.
There is no documented way that I am aware of for accomplishing this in user mode.
That said, it is possible to determine this in kernel mode, but this would involve inspecting the Page Table Entries, which belong to the Memory Manager - not something that you really wouldn't want to do in any sort of production code.
What is the real problem you're trying to solve?
The whole point of Virtual Memory is to abstract this sort of thing away. If you are storing your own data and in user-land, put it in a data-structure that supports caching and don't think about pages.
If you are writing code in kernel-space, I know in linux you need to convert a memory address from a user-land to a kernal-space one, then there are API calls in the VMM to get at the page_table_entry, and subsequently the page struct from the address. Once that is done, you use logical operators to check for flags, one of which is "swapped". If you are trying to make something fast though, traversing and messing with memory at the page level might not be the most efficient (or safest) thing to do.
More information is needed in order to provide a more complete answer.
I'm working on a third-party program that aggregates data from a bunch of different, existing Windows programs. Each program has a mechanism for exporting the data via the GUI. The most brain-dead approach would have me generate extracts by using AutoIt or some other GUI manipulation program to generate the extractions via the GUI. The problem with this is that people might be interacting with the computer when, suddenly, some automated program takes over. That's no good. What I really want to do is somehow have a program run once a day and silently (i.e. without popping up any GUIs) export the data from each program.
My research is telling me that I need to hook each application (assume these applications are always running) and inject a custom DLL to trigger each export. Am I remotely close to being on the right track? I'm a fairly experienced software dev, but I don't know a whole lot about reverse engineering or hooking. Any advice or direction would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: I'm trying to manage the availability of a certain type of professional. Their schedules are stored in proprietary systems. With their permission, I want to install an app on their system that extracts their schedule from whichever system they are using and uploads the information to a central server so that I can present that information to potential clients.
I am aware of four ways of extracting the information you want, both with their advantages and disadvantages. Before you do anything, you need to be aware that any solution you create is not guaranteed and in fact very unlikely to continue working should the target application ever update. The reason is that in each case, you are relying on an implementation detail instead of a pre-defined interface through which to export your data.
Hooking the GUI
The first way is to hook the GUI as you have suggested. What you are doing in this case is simply reading off from what an actual user would see. This is in general easier, since you are hooking the WinAPI which is clearly defined. One danger is that what the program displays is inconsistent or incomplete in comparison to the internal data it is supposed to be representing.
Typically, there are two common ways to perform WinAPI hooking:
DLL Injection. You create a DLL which you load into the other program's virtual address space. This means that you have read/write access (writable access can be gained with VirtualProtect) to the target's entire memory. From here you can trampoline the functions which are called to set UI information. For example, to check if a window has changed its text, you might trampoline the SetWindowText function. Note every control has different interfaces used to set what they are displaying. In this case, you are hooking the functions called by the code to set the display.
SetWindowsHookEx. Under the covers, this works similarly to DLL injection and in this case is really just another method for you to extend/subvert the control flow of messages received by controls. What you want to do in this case is hook the window procedures of each child control. For example, when an item is added to a ComboBox, it would receive a CB_ADDSTRING message. In this case, you are hooking the messages that are received when the display changes.
One caveat with this approach is that it will only work if the target is using or extending WinAPI controls.
Reading from the GUI
Instead of hooking the GUI, you can alternatively use WinAPI to read directly from the target windows. However, in some cases this may not be allowed. There is not much to do in this case but to try and see if it works. This may in fact be the easiest approach. Typically, you will send messages such as WM_GETTEXT to query the target window for what it is currently displaying. To do this, you will need to obtain the exact window hierarchy containing the control you are interested in. For example, say you want to read an edit control, you will need to see what parent window/s are above it in the window hierarchy in order to obtain its window handle.
Reading from memory (Advanced)
This approach is by far the most complicated but if you are able to fully reverse engineer the target program, it is the most likely to get you consistent data. This approach works by you reading the memory from the target process. This technique is very commonly used in game hacking to add 'functionality' and to observe the internal state of the game.
Consider that as well as storing information in the GUI, programs often hold their own internal model of all the data. This is especially true when the controls used are virtual and simply query subsets of the data to be displayed. This is an example of a situation where the first two approaches would not be of much use. This data is often held in some sort of abstract data type such as a list or perhaps even an array. The trick is to find this list in memory and read the values off directly. This can be done externally with ReadProcessMemory or internally through DLL injection again. The difficulty lies mainly in two prerequisites:
Firstly, you must be able to reliably locate these data structures. The problem with this is that code is not guaranteed to be in the same place, especially with features such as ASLR. Colloquially, this is sometimes referred to as code-shifting. ASLR can be defeated by using the offset from a module base and dynamically getting the module base address with functions such as GetModuleHandle. As well as ASLR, a reason that this occurs is due to dynamic memory allocation (e.g. through malloc). In such cases, you will need to find a heap address storing the pointer (which would for example be the return of malloc), dereference that and find your list. That pointer would be prone to ASLR and instead of a pointer, it might be a double-pointer, triple-pointer, etc.
The second problem you face is that it would be rare for each list item to be a primitive type. For example, instead of a list of character arrays (strings), it is likely that you will be faced with a list of objects. You would need to further reverse engineer each object type and understand internal layouts (at least be able to determine offsets of primitive values you are interested in in terms of its offset from the object base). More advanced methods revolve around actually reverse engineering the vtable of objects and calling their 'API'.
You might notice that I am not able to give information here which is specific. The reason is that by its nature, using this method requires an intimate understanding of the target's internals and as such, the specifics are defined only by how the target has been programmed. Unless you have knowledge and experience of reverse engineering, it is unlikely you would want to go down this route.
Hooking the target's internal API (Advanced)
As with the above solution, instead of digging for data structures, you dig for the internal API. I briefly covered this with when discussing vtables earlier. Instead of doing this, you would be attempting to find internal APIs that are called when the GUI is modified. Typically, when a view/UI is modified, instead of directly calling the WinAPI to update it, a program will have its own wrapper function which it calls which in turn calls the WinAPI. You simply need to find this function and hook it. Again this is possible, but requires reverse engineering skills. You may find that you discover functions which you want to call yourself. In this case, as well as being able to locate the location of the function, you have to reverse engineer the parameters it takes, its calling convention and you will need to ensure calling the function has no side effects.
I would consider this approach to be advanced. It can certainly be done and is another common technique used in game hacking to observe internal states and to manipulate a target's behaviour, but is difficult!
The first two methods are well suited for reading data from WinAPI programs and are by far easier. The two latter methods allow greater flexibility. With enough work, you are able to read anything and everything encapsulated by the target but requires a lot of skill.
Another point of concern which may or may not relate to your case is how easy it will be to update your solution to work should the target every be updated. With the first two methods, it is more likely no changes or small changes have to be made. With the second two methods, even a small change in source code can cause a relocation of the offsets you are relying upon. One method of dealing with this is to use byte signatures to dynamically generate the offsets. I wrote another answer some time ago which addresses how this is done.
What I have written is only a brief summary of the various techniques that can be used for what you want to achieve. I may have missed approaches, but these are the most common ones I know of and have experience with. Since these are large topics in themselves, I would advise you ask a new question if you want to obtain more detail about any particular one. Note that in all of the approaches I have discussed, none of them suffer from any interaction which is visible to the outside world so you would have no problem with anything popping up. It would be, as you describe, 'silent'.
This is relevant information about detouring/trampolining which I have lifted from a previous answer I wrote:
If you are looking for ways that programs detour execution of other
processes, it is usually through one of two means:
Dynamic (Runtime) Detouring - This is the more common method and is what is used by libraries such as Microsoft Detours. Here is a
relevant paper where the first few bytes of a function are overwritten
to unconditionally branch to the instrumentation.
(Static) Binary Rewriting - This is a much less common method for rootkits, but is used by research projects. It allows detouring to be
performed by statically analysing and overwriting a binary. An old
(not publicly available) package for Windows that performs this is
Etch. This paper gives a high-level view of how it works
conceptually.
Although Detours demonstrates one method of dynamic detouring, there
are countless methods used in the industry, especially in the reverse
engineering and hacking arenas. These include the IAT and breakpoint
methods I mentioned above. To 'point you in the right direction' for
these, you should look at 'research' performed in the fields of
research projects and reverse engineering.
I am trying to understand if we can add our page fault handlers / exception handlers in kernel / user mode and handle the fault we induced before giving the control back to the kernel.
The task here will be not modifying the existing kernel code (do_page_fault fn) but add a user defined handler which will be looked up when a page fault or and exception is triggered
One could find tools like "kprobe" which provide hooks at instruction, but looks like this will not serve my purpose.
Will be great if somebody can help me understand this or point to good references.
From user space, you can define a signal handler for SIGSEGV, so your own function will be invoked whenever an invalid memory access is made. When combined with mprotect(), this lets a program manage its own virtual memory, all from user-space.
However, I get the impression that you're looking for a way to intercept all page faults (major, minor, and invalid) and invoke an arbitrary kernel function in response. I don't know a clean way to do this. When I needed this functionality in my own research projects, I ended up adding code to do_page_fault(). It works fine for me, but it's a hack. I would be very interested if someone knew of a clean way to do this (i.e., that could be used by a module on a vanilla kernel).
If you don't won't to change the way kernel handles these fault and just add yours before, then kprobes will server your purpose. They are a little difficult to handle, because you get arguments of probed functions in structure containing registers and on stack and you have to know, where exactly did compiler put each of them. BUT, if you need it for specific functions (known during creation of probes), then you can use jprobes (here is a nice example on how to use both), which require functions for probing with exactly same arguments as probed one (so no mangling in registers/stack).
You can dynamically load a kernel module and install jprobes on chosen functions without having to modify your kernel.
You want can install a user-level pager with gnu libsegsev. I haven't used it, but it seems to be just what you are looking for.
I do not think it would be possible - first of all, the page fault handler is a complex function which need direct access to virtual memory subsystem structures.
Secondly, imagine it would not be an issue, yet in order to write a page fault handler in user space you should be able to capture a fault which is by default a force transfer to kernel space, so at least you should prevent this to happen.
To this end you would need a supervisor to keep track of all memory access, but you cannot guarantee that supervisor code was already mapped and present in memory.